Figured this was coming

[Niall C]

Getting back to the golf aspect..... Turnberry will host another Open Championship.  It is too good of a venue not to host again and the R&A knows that.    It may be in 10 yrs because the R&A is looking to branch out to new venues and expand it's Open portfolio. 
And who knows who will even own it at that point.  It may be called the  'Zuckerburg Facebook Turnberry Resort & Internet Cafe' at that point.  Ownerships change and I think that this is a knee jerk reaction that will smooth over.  Just may take time.   

Anton


Knee-jerk, seriously ? One of the Scottish papers quoted an unnamed source who referred to the conversations going within the R&A and that one word was used consistently after Trumps Muslim comments and that was "enough". They have obviously been considering their position with regards to Trump for some time. I'd imagine there would be very few instances when you could accuse the R&A of doing anything in a knee-jerk manner given how conservative they are, and I really don't think this is one of them.


Niall

[Niall C]

Now if Trump bought The Old Course Hotel and banned muslims from staying that would cause the R&A a serious problem!

Ed

Why ?

Niall

I'm well aware that the R&A don't own the hotel - isn't it Kohler? However, the Old Course and the Old Course Hotel are inextricably linked - "Hit it over the O of the Old Course Hotel". Do you not imagine it would cause the R&A serious embarrassment, not to mention logistical issues:

"Where are you staying Jordan, Rory, etc..", "At TOC Hotel?. Do you support Mr Trump's views? Do you not believe it would be better to send out a statement etc, etc......"

This would be an issue every year at the Dunhill, and every 5 at The Open. The media would be all over it. There would be petitions to not hold the Open at St.Andrews. Sponsors would be wary. The R&A could legitimately say that it is nothing to do with them but the public perception would be that it is.

Ed


I really don't agree with that analysis. If anything it would be individual players who might cop any flack for staying at a Trump property but plenty people do that now without attracting criticism. Besides, I'm sure the big name players who often rent houses anyway, could quite readily sidestep that sort of question while the lesser known players are unlikely to attract the question in the first place, even if they could afford the Old Course Hotel prices !


The only issue could be if Trump decided to be awkward and take out an interim interdict to stop play at the 17th which I imagine he could quite readily do. That doesn't bear thinking about but again would the R&A take the flak ?


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Some kind of announcement today that Donald T has lost his appeal to prevent wind-farms off Aberdeen.
Atb

[Anton]

Getting back to the golf aspect..... Turnberry will host another Open Championship.  It is too good of a venue not to host again and the R&A knows that.    It may be in 10 yrs because the R&A is looking to branch out to new venues and expand it's Open portfolio. 
And who knows who will even own it at that point.  It may be called the  'Zuckerburg Facebook Turnberry Resort & Internet Cafe' at that point.  Ownerships change and I think that this is a knee jerk reaction that will smooth over.  Just may take time.   

Anton


Knee-jerk, seriously ? One of the Scottish papers quoted an unnamed source who referred to the conversations going within the R&A and that one word was used consistently after Trumps Muslim comments and that was "enough". They have obviously been considering their position with regards to Trump for some time. I'd imagine there would be very few instances when you could accuse the R&A of doing anything in a knee-jerk manner given how conservative they are, and I really don't think this is one of them.


Niall

Niall,
Cooler heads will prevail and the Open will return to Turnberry.  In their official statement they left the door still open to it hosting in the future.  If it had been on the schedule already and they knocked it off, then I would take them seriously.  Some of the members don't like the owner (even before the campaigning) and that's fine but at the end of the day, Turnberry is a worthy championship course and thus the Open will return there even if the ownership is the same.  I am interested to see what comes out of the construction project there though.  The changes to the course captivate me more than the politics. 
What is next...  Taking courses off the rotation due to who is a member?  My course would never see the tour again due to some of the characters we have floating around.   

Have a great day and nice chatting with you! 
A

[Carl Rogers]

Moderator, please delete.

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=10pt}
I am unsure if you were joking (I have difficulty identifying sarcasm in Internet postings), but just to be clear to the other readers, foreign nationals do have Constitutional rights, including those of the First Amendment.  Now they do not have FULL Constitutional rights, but they do have some rights granted to them under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights.  There are no protections directly afforded to them under the Constitution, including the First Amendment.

Pat,

I know you'll do a song and a dance to dismiss it, but you're wrong on this one buddy.

https://www.quora.com/Which-rights-does-the-US-Constitution-protect-for-people-who-are-not-US-citizens

Kalen,

You need to reread these links with some degree of reading comprehension and context.

There are reasons for keeping enemy combatants in Guantanamo and one of them has to do with Constitutional rights ONCE you're on American soil.

Foreign Nationals, who reside and are outside of the United States have NO direct protections under the Constitution.

[Kalen Braley]

Pat,

That's not the context you provided it in.

When you said:

"Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights", you implied it was foreign nationals from those counties living in the US, not visa versa.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

Trump provided the context when he stated that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.

Only morons would equate wanting to come to the United States with already being in the United States.

My statement regarding Foreign Nationals not having the protections afforded by the Constitution is accurate in the context of the issue.


Pat,

That's not the context you provided it in.

When you said:

"Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights", you implied it was a foreign nationals from those counties living in the US, not visa versa.

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

Trump provided the context when he stated that he wanted to ban Muslims from entering the U.S.

Only morons would equate wanting to come to the United States with already being in the United States.

My statement regarding Foreign Nationals not having the protections afforded by the Constitution is accurate in the context of the issue.


Pat,

That's not the context you provided it in.

When you said:

"Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights", you implied it was a foreign nationals from those counties living in the US, not visa versa.

Sorry Pat,

I know you love revisionist history...but this was your original comment back on page 2 that started this entire thing...

"Jason,
The First Amendment does NOT apply to foreign nationals. 
The protections afforded by the Constitution apply to U.S. citizens."

This is the part you got flat out wrong.  But by all means Pat, don't stop there.

Do please carry on with your....

[Patrick_Mucci]

Kalen,

You, me and the entire GCA.com participants/Lurkers KNOW that neither Trump nor I was referencing Foreign Nationals NOW on U.S. soil.

It was clear from the outset that the issue centered on Foreign Nationals seeking admittance to the U.S.
Foreign Nationals presently residing in other countries

And, I'm pretty confident that you didn't understand the Constitutional distinction when I first posted.

[Jason Thurman]

My statement regarding Foreign Nationals not having the protections afforded by the Constitution is accurate in the context of the issue.

Not really...


The 1st amendment doesn't GRANT individual rights, and therefore has nothing to do with US citizens, foreign nationals, tourists, or immigrants. Instead, it REMOVES the authority from Congress to impose laws that discriminate against or otherwise limit, among other things, religion. At the same time, presidents and Congress have authority to regulate travel into the country. There is no legal precedent for a religion being banned in the US, whether the ban involves travel into the country or practice within it, so there has been a fair amount of debate on whether Trump's "proposal" would pass legal muster - is it trumped by the 1st amendment or legal as part of the federal government's ability to restrict travel? Regardless of the answer, I still think the idea is an affront to a fundamental principle upon which the US was founded.


Of course, I'm quite confident that we'll never learn whether it would or wouldn't hold up legally. Trump won't be either the Republican nominee or the next president, and I'm happy to wager against anyone who believes otherwise. What that means for golf and golf course architecture, I have no idea.


This thread started off-topic and has drifted further afield. I will not be posting in it again. If you want to wager on Trump, send a PM.

[Bill_McBride]

[size=10pt}
I am unsure if you were joking (I have difficulty identifying sarcasm in Internet postings), but just to be clear to the other readers, foreign nationals do have Constitutional rights, including those of the First Amendment.  Now they do not have FULL Constitutional rights, but they do have some rights granted to them under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights.  There are no protections directly afforded to them under the Constitution, including the First Amendment.

Pat,

I know you'll do a song and a dance to dismiss it, but you're wrong on this one buddy.

https://www.quora.com/Which-rights-does-the-US-Constitution-protect-for-people-who-are-not-US-citizens

Kalen,

You need to reread these links with some degree of reading comprehension and context.

There are reasons for keeping enemy combatants in Guantanamo and one of them has to do with Constitutional rights ONCE you're on American soil.

Foreign Nationals, who reside and are outside of the United States have NO direct protections under the Constitution.[/color]

Hmmm.  Isn't Guantanamo US soil in the same way the Canal Zone was in Panama?   John McCain was able to run for president although he was born there because of that condition. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

[size=10pt}
I am unsure if you were joking (I have difficulty identifying sarcasm in Internet postings), but just to be clear to the other readers, foreign nationals do have Constitutional rights, including those of the First Amendment.  Now they do not have FULL Constitutional rights, but they do have some rights granted to them under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights.  There are no protections directly afforded to them under the Constitution, including the First Amendment.

Pat,

I know you'll do a song and a dance to dismiss it, but you're wrong on this one buddy.

https://www.quora.com/Which-rights-does-the-US-Constitution-protect-for-people-who-are-not-US-citizens

Kalen,

You need to reread these links with some degree of reading comprehension and context.

There are reasons for keeping enemy combatants in Guantanamo and one of them has to do with Constitutional rights ONCE you're on American soil.

Foreign Nationals, who reside and are outside of the United States have NO direct protections under the Constitution.

Hmmm.  Isn't Guantanamo US soil in the same way the Canal Zone was in Panama? 
 
Neither one is considered the United States.
 
A treaty between Cuba and the U.S. is responsible for Guantanamo.
That's why Obama reinstated relations with Cuba, because the release of Guantanamo to Cuba requires consent of both parties.  Absent diplomatic relations you couldn't get Cuba's signature.
 
Didn't you pay attention in school ?
 
 
John McCain was able to run for president although he was born there because of that condition.

[Bill_McBride]

[size=10pt}
I am unsure if you were joking (I have difficulty identifying sarcasm in Internet postings), but just to be clear to the other readers, foreign nationals do have Constitutional rights, including those of the First Amendment.  Now they do not have FULL Constitutional rights, but they do have some rights granted to them under the U.S. Constitution.
 
Foreign Nationals, citizens of Syria, Iraq, Iran, etc., etc., have no constitutional rights.  There are no protections directly afforded to them under the Constitution, including the First Amendment.

Pat,

I know you'll do a song and a dance to dismiss it, but you're wrong on this one buddy.

https://www.quora.com/Which-rights-does-the-US-Constitution-protect-for-people-who-are-not-US-citizens

Kalen,

You need to reread these links with some degree of reading comprehension and context.

There are reasons for keeping enemy combatants in Guantanamo and one of them has to do with Constitutional rights ONCE you're on American soil.

Foreign Nationals, who reside and are outside of the United States have NO direct protections under the Constitution.

Hmmm.  Isn't Guantanamo US soil in the same way the Canal Zone was in Panama? 
 
Neither one is considered the United States.
 
A treaty between Cuba and the U.S. is responsible for Guantanamo.
That's why Obama reinstated relations with Cuba, because the release of Guantanamo to Cuba requires consent of both parties.  Absent diplomatic relations you couldn't get Cuba's signature.
 
Didn't you pay attention in school ?
 
 
John McCain was able to run for president although he was born there because of that condition.

Neither is considered the United States.  Then how was McCain allowed to run for president?   Can't tell you how many times I've read that it was because the Canal Zone was considered US soil. 

[Sean_A]

Ace

I think you have to define natural born citizen and it is generally acknowledged that a natural born citizen is a person who is entitled US citizenship at birth.  McCain's father was a US citizen so McCain's place of birth is immaterial.   


Ciao

[Mike Hamilton]

Congrats Paul.  Up until now I thought "Ken M" was the greatest troll on the internet.  He's been replaced.

I was going to nominate the "FDR on Mount Rushmore" poster for the same award, but I guess Ken M. is only pretending to be an idiot.

David,

   The difference between me and you is I have humility.  You are if not the most arrogant poster on GCA.  At least I don't have a outhouse named after me...

I don't think it's technically an outhouse.  It's actually pretty nice with running water, a clean sink, and a flush toilet.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill,


Guantanamo and the Panama Canal Zone were "territories" where control was ceded to  the United States by treaties.


While Guantanamo is a territory controlled by the U.S. the U.S. Recognizes that Cuba retains the ultimate sovereignty of the land that the base sits on.


Both bases/zones were created by treaties with the U.S.


Next.

[John Kirk]

Congrats Paul.  Up until now I thought "Ken M" was the greatest troll on the internet.  He's been replaced.

https://www.reddit.com/r/KenM/

That's pretty funny.